This study explores lived experiences regarding recovery from problem substance use among persons with a
migration background and ethnic minorities (MEM). MEM are defined as individuals who themselves or at least
one of their (grand)parents have migrated to a country other than their country of origin and who self-identify
as persons with a migration background. Ethnic minorities are groups who form a minority in the country they
reside in due to their ethnicity. They are a minority in number compared to the ethnic majority population but
may also be a minority in power relations because of mechanisms of racialisation (Hall, 2017). MEM are
recognised as a heterogeneous population with diverse profiles, social backgrounds, resources, and aspirations
(Rechel et al., 2013; Vertovec, 2007).
Prevalence numbers are inconclusive about whether problem substance use among MEM is higher or lower
compared to majority populations (Van Selm et al., 2022). This is related to the heterogeneity of the population
and a complex synergy between risk and protective factors for problem substance use. Risk factors are often
consistently present between ethnic groups, suggesting that they are largely universal in their effects, regardless
of individuals’ cultural background or migration history (Savage & Mezuk, 2014). MEM are known to be
confronted with several access barriers to healthcare and substance use treatment. Furthermore, they are more
likely to drop out of treatment because of mismatches with their treatment needs (Alegria et al., 2011; De Kock,
2021).
The new recovery paradigm defines recovery as a dynamic, personal, and multidimensional process of change,
characterised by increased wellbeing in multiple life domains (Hewitt, 2007; Laudet, 2008; White & Cloud, 2008).
It represents a shift from a clinical and abstinence-based view on substance use recovery to a strengths-based
and person-centred view that goes beyond substance use (Harper & Speed, 2012; Klevan et al., 2021).
Substance use recovery is facilitated by recovery capital. Recovery capital refers to internal and external
resources that initiate and sustain recovery on a personal, social and community level (Best & Colman, 2019;
Kelly & Hoeppner, 2015; White, 2007). The thesis employed White and Cloud's (2008) ecological description of
recovery capital (Best & Colman, 2019; White & Cloud, 2008). Personal recovery capital includes human and
physical recovery capital. Human recovery capital concerns, among others, a person’s values, knowledge and
skills. Physical recovery capital includes physical health, financial assets, health insurance, safe housing, clothing,
food, and transportation. Social recovery capital encompasses intimate, family, and other supportive social
relationships. Community recovery capital concerns community attitudes, policies, and resources that promote
recovery and includes cultural capital representing the availability of culturally relevant recovery pathways and
resources in the community (White & Cloud, 2008).
While the recovery concept is gaining importance in treatment and policy worldwide, research on recovery from
problem substance use among minority populations such as MEM is limited (Bird, 2015; Hennessy, 2017).
Literature indicates that the recovery processes of MEM may be influenced by various MEM-specific factors and
experiences (Ida, 2007). Multiple social and structural factors, such as stigma, discrimination, cultural influences,
personal trauma, and socio-economic inequality, may impact the recovery processes and resources of MEM
(Cloud & Granfield, 2008; De Kock et al., 2020b; Derluyn et al., 2008; Giacco et al., 2014, Sheedy & Whitter, 2009).
Furthermore, research has highlighted the significance of creating recovery-supportive environments that take
the probability of certain specific needs among MEM into account (Castro & Alarcón, 2002; Gainsbury, 2017;
McCabe et al., 2007; Vandevelde et al., 2003). However, most of the recovery research has been based on
Western research designs that mainly involve participants from white ethnic majority populations. The concepts
of recovery and recovery capital have been criticised for their lack of empirical support among MEM (Bird et al.,
2011; Hennessy, 2017). To identify possible recovery resources and needs among MEM, research should include
the perspectives and experiences of MEM themselves (Blomme et al., 2017; Hennessy, 2017; Stanhope &
Solomon, 2008). By examining recovery and recovery capital from the lived experiences of MEM, the study seeks
to identify the resources that can help or hinder recovery processes within the individual, their social context,
and community (White & Cloud, 2008).
The following research questions are addressed:
What do MEM experience as helping and hindering elements in their substance use recovery processes?
1) What recovery capital do MEM address in their recovery?
2) What barriers to recovery and recovery capital do MEM identify?
3) Why and how do MEM experience these (barriers to) recovery capital elements as helping and
hindering?
4) What elements of recovery capital are MEM-specific and what elements can be considered universal?